I’m sure it has nothing to do with the billionaire pedophiles not giving a fuck.
Of course not. It’s not enough people recycling their grocery bags.
‘Sharp acceleration’ meaning 75% faster warming in the last decade compared to the 40 years previous, and blowing past the 1.5° target in 3-4 years. No speculation was given, but I think it’s likely we’re seeing the limits of oceanic absorption of co2 and heat. The ocean’s latent heat capacity has flattened the curve for more than a century, and it’s very hard to predict when that will run out, but sea surface temperatures spiking all over have been good evidence that we have passed a major tipping point in the last few years.
They also banned sulphur oxide in ship fuel which would have had a cooling effect, that was hiding the full extent of the damage and is slowly dissipating
Won’t be long until we start doing that again on purpose
Good news is cloud seeding is viable? Bad news is we’re probably gonna need it.
How great fixing pollution with more pollution.
🎵 The solution to pollution is…more pollution? 🎵
Actually it’s kinda good news as it shows we can make direct impact to the climate. Just with a substance actually made for it.
Don’t take it too seriously, there is an effect but it’s not that large. And anyways, the change in maritime fuel standards happened in 2020, while this trend goes back to 2015. A geoengineering project is just going to cause more problems, we don’t know nearly enough about how the world works, truly.
I’ve read that the models used to predict the rate of change were too optimistic or an assumption about them was too conservative and thus not very realistic. Now we have data showing the models under-predicted the rate of change, so one argument is that we were already on this path since decades ago, we just didn’t model it right.
In any case, we’re all fucked so who gives a shit anyway no?
Is there a name for when we know what the right thing to do is but we keep not doing it?
Great Filter.
All of the climate models have adjustable parameters. We are still within the bounds of the worst case scenarios but scientists are always afraid to claim too much. An academic’s reputation is a lot less recoverable than a pop star or politician in the sense that they, and their colleagues, actually take their words and predictions seriously. I don’t want to completely dismiss the effect of lobbying and corruption toward the downplaying of global warming, but making smaller-than-necessary claims is a common sight in most academic fields.
1.5°C Threshold Could Be Exceeded Before 2030
Come to Europe one of these days. We’re at 2.3°C.. Come and see our cities getting closer to temperatures of Phoenix, or the many forest fires, the droughts, powerplants shutting down because of a lack of water, transportation issues. The idiots saying more CO2 being good for plants can ask the farmers how things are going. We’re not having a good summer.
The thing that doesn’t get called out enough is that many greenhouse gasses have a lag time before they actually start causing heat. CO2 for example takes about 20 years if I recall correctly. So we are seeing the results of what was emitted years ago… not necessarily the current emissions.
Really? I’ve never heard of this, and I’m a climate scientist… Not saying it’s definitely wrong, but a citation would be good.
Edit: Huh, seems it’s true: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001 although that is for large pulses of CO2, I don’t know how that translates into a constant stream of emissions…
Well greenhouse gases are often described as a blanket and a blanket doesn’t immediately get warm, it take time. I doubt the trickling effect is much different in lag time than sudden pulses, its just gradually increasing the blanket rather than pulling it all on at once. Its still gonna take time for more solar energy to accumulate by bouncing off the trickling in CO2.
In the book plows, plagues, and petroleum, the author uses several factors of humans history to argue that man made climate change was slowly having an impact much before the industrial revolution, which is the common “starting point” for most people and scientists. Althought not as drastic as this sudden increase in fossil fuel burning, they argue that impacts such as deforestion and burning of cropland in early human settlements had a measureable impact on carbon sinks and carbon releases, still enough to start skewing the natural rate of climate change.
Yeah… realising I was not making a distinction between greenhouse effect (e.g. increased rate of warming), and the result (e.g. actual increased heat content/temperature. I think the rate of warming increase is basically instant, but yes, it takes some time for the temperature levels to catch up.
I don’t know if I was explicitly taught it at uni, buy I have always understood as a climate scientist that GHG emissions started before the industrial revolution (albeit small). I think that’s common knowledge in climate science.
Not true at all. Compare:
“lag time before they actually start causing heat” and
“the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average”
A “start” and a “maximum” are completely different. IR absorption starts immediately and increases over years to a maximum.
I don’t think that last bit is right, see my other comment to FireRetardant’s reply. I think the increase in warming rate is basically instantaneous (maybe a few months for atmospheric mixing), it’s the peak of temperature/heat that is delayed (agreeing with your 3rd paragraph)
Apologies I should have linked a source in that claim. I only had a rough understanding of it and had read an article on phys.org that mentioned that previously. Arguably still a big concern since we could not be seeing the actual warming done in present day 2026 for another decade or more.
But at least we made a bunch of grotesque genocidal pedophiles obscenely wealthy.
“Data centers fix this” -billionaires probably
And then AI says the should reduce emissions and they order some engineers to fix that clearly broken model 🙄
I wonder if this have anything to do with moving quickly from “we must all limit our energy consumption” to “we must burn as much energy possible for no real purpose”.
I guess we’ll never know /s
we should ask AI!
Fire up the natural gas generators, this baby isn’t grid tied yet!
Since it started in the mid 2010s, it’s probably not AI related. That will be an extra addition…
Crypto farming, feeding the ai bubble, large scale wars of aggression, commuters replacing cars with trucks, buying throwaway junk has never been easier. That’s the relatively new completely unnecessary hubris that I can think off atm. These should be the low hanging fruits to just not do, but apparently we’re going to continue doing them anyways. If we can’t address the low hanging fruits, then tackling the harder challenges will remain a pipe dream until it’s too late. Climate stability is fucked, and we’re in for a rough ride.
Even if you ignore anything else, just speak to ANY mountaineer, and they’ll all tell you that glaciers are drying up
yeah, back when i was young and had energy there was this 12 mile run up a mountain to the glacier (or where it was) and back i’d do once or twice a year. last time i saw the glacier was like, 20 years ago.
My family would always go skiing in the nearby mountains every Christmas. We are starting to have the conversation of changing that plan, given how bad the snow has been the past two years, and predictions for the future are only getting worse.
Lakes in Minnesota are frozen something like 30 days less per year on average than they were in 1975.
Climate change deniers are either stupid, greedy, or both.
I have also detected this by the way it is.
That’s pretty neat!
The mark 1 ass can detect extreme heat or cold and earthquakes and local humidity.
During the late 1970’s, ExxonMobil scientists predicted global warming would accelerate with use of fossil fuels. They were shockingly accurate and the f’ed up weather patterns are the result. Keep buying and driving gas guzzlers.
The economy is fucked, no one can afford anything that isn’t a gas guzzler, barely can even afford the gas guzzlers themselves.
So, we are fucked, it was (not really that) nice while it lasted I guess ^_^
Meanwhile the Megayacht business is booming.
We can’t even stop a rise in fascism, an incredibly stupid thing, across the globe. We don’t stand a chance against global warming. We’re cooked.
We’ve done more in the last five years to curb fossil fuel consumption than at an point in human history.
From a massive pivot to renewable energy to our Green-Centric foreign policy of blowing up Nordstrem II, embargoing Venezuela, and shutting down the Straight of Hormuz, we are absolutely turning a corner on future fossil fuel consumption.
Donald Trump may go down in history as the most climate friendly leader in our generation. A hundred thousand Greenpeace activists could not have achieved in their lifetime what he’s done in less than two terms as president.
Hilariously, you are right. It certainly wasn’t his intention to do so, but it is happening. Strangely aligned with China spending like crazy to pivot to a green energy super-supplier. End of an era, although no one will admit it yet.
More. But enough?
Even the billionaire cult conterences shifted from “debunking global warming” to “adapting to global warming”.
Unfortunately the problem with global warming is that it happens very slowly over time. Scientists were warning us of the impacts of global warming for at least a decade but we have somehow prioritized the short term gains and now we and our children will bear the fruits of our negligence.
Scientists were warning us of the impacts of global warming for at least a decade
They’ve been warning us with some urgency since at least the 1970s. There were concerns published about it in the late 19th century. By the early 1990s the warnings were loud and clear for everyone to hear.
There were cartoons about it in the 1900s, people had an idea about it pretty early on when rivers stopped freezing suddenly.
Yes, this makes us even more ignorant. At some point in the past I was kind of hopeful we as united humanity can overcome this problem, like with the ozone layer hole, but then these individualistic policies started to sweep over the world and people started to care about other problems more.
We needed to bring out pitchforks and torches to dethrone the ultra wealthy like… 30 years ago.
The US military is one of, if not the largest, enemy of the environment. Every one of us could do our part but without militaries being mindful too, the environment is cooked.
the air force literally dumps jet fuel all the time so they can adjust to proper weight to land
It’s messed up, but it’s better than burning it.
How is it better? It all just evaporates and breaks down into the same amount of CO2, while also poisoning some habitat along the way. I guess it’s less NOx, so maybe that’s a benefit?
